116 comments

So just who is a neoliberal then? I’ve noticed you say you’re an indie like myself although you’ve yet to finger even one Democrat, you are pretty good at listing off the usual Rep suspects (not that I’m arguing with you on their guilt) but you still seem to hold the Democrat’s blameless in it all.

You have already been asked this by another poster yet you refuse to answer: If Ron is for the “ruling elite” why is it they don’t donate to his campaign, why is it they have done everything they can to mock him, smear him, and marginalize his campaign? Shouldn’t they be laying out the red carpet for him to get into the White House if his policies would so greatly line their pockets?

When the corporations broke the rules, who bailed them out? Was it Ron Paul, no, he voted against the bailouts so those guilty parties would go bankrupt and suffer the consequences of their actions, that is how you regulate things, but instead the govt cheated the system gave them a pass, THAT is how wealth keeps transfering from “us” to “them”.

1) Ron Paul doesn’t use your exact words “trickle down-flood up” or any of the other terms you made up. He has studied economics. In fact, he studies economics in his spare time for enjoyment. (This came out in one of the debates.) He talks about the free market system instead.

2) Both you and Charlie seem to think that the rich are CURRENTLY using the free market system to get richer. We do NOT have a free market system. The rich are getting richer through crony-capitalism. Like Obama getting big campaign contributions kicked back to him from as a slice of the taxpayer money given to his buddy at Solyndra that won’t to be paid back.

3) Ron Paul is NOT against unions. He is in favor of workers having the freedom of choice as to whether to join a union or not. If a union is worthwhile, it will have no trouble gaining new members without the force of government.

4) I really could not honestly understand your point about the Koch brothers killing 10,000 through pollution and then the remaining population take up the shortfall. What shortfall? The lives of the 10,000? Do you mean that those lives will be replaced by the rest of the population reproducing? It is unclear to me.

5) Criminalize corruption and plowing under K Street. This is good. Did you know Ron Paul has proven himself incorruptible? 24 years in Congress. No Lobbyist dollars. No government junkets. He even returns money from his Congressional office budget back to the taxpayers!

This article that we have been exchanging comments under is implying so much in that every transaction is recorded. And there’s nothing with even the appearance of impropriety.

6) You’re right about Corporate America and what you call ‘the right’ (when you mean ‘the government’) working together and changing the rules whenever convenient.

7) Follow your rule “You are what you do, not what you say” when evaluating Ron Paul. See my #5 above. He has consistently honored his oath to uphold the Constitution and still does. His record is spotless. None of the other 4 candidates can claim that.

8) Your repeating of the Constitution’s preamble is impressive—how do you do that boldface and italics? Are you using HTML codes? Or do you type it somewhere else and cut and paste?

9) I’m pretty sure “General Welfare” as written in the Constitution’s preamble does not mean the population should generally be on government welfare or other public assistance. Just sayin’.

10) Ron Paul’s record: FIND ONE ITEM IN OVER 24 YEARS IN CONGRESS WHERE RON PAUL HAS SACRIFICED THE GENERAL WELFARE TO ADVANTAGE THE PRIVILEGED FEW. Should be easy for you. But it will be impossible.

You may find something he has voted against because it would give out entitlements. But stopping that benefits the entire country, not the privileged few. Let’s here it, Steve! You’ve been challenged!

And that is truly remarkable. That long of a career. Always true to the Constitution. Spurning the Lobbyists in the den of vipers that is the House of Representatives. Ron Paul is amazing and deserves to be our President simply to stand as an example of morality and ethics for this nation. All of his others ideas and vision are a tremendous bonus!

Ron Paul 2012. Truly different. Truly better. Truly needed.

ibsteve2u

April 2, 2012, 8:27 p.m.

lollll…a lot of pontificating about “crony capitalism”, Paul Churlelington…and then there is the fact of Ron Paul’s votes against allowing shareholders to determine executive compensation in both 2007 and 2009.

Among other things, Paul wants to exempt capital gains and dividends from taxation. Who is that going to benefit the most - the 1%, or those Americans who have to work for a living?

Further, Ron Paul wants to allow corporations to repatriate offshore profits tax-free!!!! What would that do, but accelerate job loss in America by making it far more profitable to relocate Corporate America offshore, kit and kaboodle?

Either you guys don’t actually know what Ron Paul intends, or you think nobody else does.

ibsteve2u

April 2, 2012, 8:38 p.m.

I answered the question re why the upper tier is donating to “other-than-Ron-Paul” at 5:33 PM, in part.

The other part has to do with “electability”...they’re not sending money Paul’s way for the same reason the top tier are always trying to eliminate rules and regulations that require them to work at harvesting wealth: They like a sure thing.

Lazy scuts.

motter

April 2, 2012, 9:31 p.m.

Steve, I give up, go vote for Obama then, see what that get’s ya. Tell me, how much “wealth equality” has been restored under his presidency? How much has poverty gone down? For that matter how successful has this whole “war on poverty” been since it started years ago? I’ll tell you, about as successful as the war on drugs and the wars in the Middle East.

If you actually ran a small business, as I do, you would know full well that those rules don’t “require the top tier to work at harvesting wealth”, those rules were written by people who were bought and paid for by the very corporations they are supposed to be regulating and all it does is allow big companies to smash smaller one’s like mine, you don’t believe me, come on out and see what I have to deal with on a daily basis from your good friend the govt, they harass the hell out of me all the while giving the big dogs some token insignificant fine here and there to make people like yourself think they are “regulating”.

For the record, I am with you in theory, I have no more love for the rich than the next person, I am afraid however you are only imagining things in a fantasy world, these ideas never play out in reality the way you are hoping.

Sergio Tkaczevski

April 2, 2012, 9:32 p.m.

I support Ron Paul. Ron Paul is doing a very good job. Stop telling lies about Ron Paul delgate count, mainstream media and Yahoo News.

David

April 2, 2012, 10:21 p.m.

First sentence, typical lie. Dr. paul is in second place with delegates…dont believe the media lies. Of course he’s frugal. He sends back a portion of his Congressional budgert every year…how many other congressmen can say that?

ibsteve2u

April 2, 2012, 10:40 p.m.

@motter: Don’t “give up” until you figure out how to reconcile your expectation that Paul intends to put an end to “rules [...] written by people who were bought and paid for by the very corporations they are supposed to be regulating and all it does is allow big companies to smash smaller one’s like mine” with the fact that Paul intends to allow Corporate America to haul in their offshore profits tax free.

You think you - the American small business owner - will be able to compete with a mega-corporation that uses artificially cheaper (thanks to their cheaper cost of living) offshore labor, has no environmental rules/costs to worry about because totalitarian people/governments consider non-wealthy, non-powerful people to be disposable and also don’t have to pay taxes?

That is what Paul wants.

mitchie124

April 2, 2012, 10:43 p.m.

Nobody but Paul 2012!

David

April 2, 2012, 11:16 p.m.

Ibesteve2u…maybe you dont comprehend the reality that the income tax is a ruse of the FED and the bankers. It was supposed to be for a limited time, and held at 1%. We see how long that lasted.
2. The capitol gains tax is keeping a TRILLION dollars offshore. these investors want to invest here but the capitol gains tax we have is the highest in the world. This prevents investment here…without capitol to invest, the market does not grow, or is limited against growth. If we removed the FED (eventually) and backed our money with something of worth, instead of THIN AIR, the economy would boom just as it did EVERYTIME we went back on the Gold Standard. The FED wants control of ALL moneys, then they can do what they want with the worlds economies. There is nothing Constitutional about the IMF using taxpayers money, to bail out banks and institutions…ESPECIALLY in foreign nations! We are the United States…unless you presume that the Globalist UN is your keeper. With a partial audit, Ron Paul found 16 trillion dollars unaccounted for. With a full audit, we will find that the Banks that control the FED use our own moneys to finance the other sides of wars…as they have done all throughout history,. I dont know if you understand the “scam” behind fiat money, but it deflates the dollar, while the FED gets a return by loaning banks something THEY DONT EVEN POSSES. iTS CALLED FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING, AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY, IT HAS RE-DISTRIBUTED WEALTH, BREAKING NATIONS BY SIPHONING OFF MONEY, AND INVESTING IT WITH OTHER NATIONS, AND CORPORATIONS OWNED BY THE VERY BANKERS THAT MAKE THE INTEREST FROM LOANING IT BACK TO US “SHEEP”. Excuse the capitols…get stuck and dont look up…Im not screeching : ) Every time this nation has returned to a gold standard, we have seen prosperity, such as the roaring 20’s… Working with the CFR, the fed fuels the call for war, knowing that we must return to fiat money to pay for the war. What we really should do, is write letters of marquee and reprisal, and charge the nation we protect/defeat…whatever the case is. Instead they dump the cost of the war on the taxpayer. The only people that benefit from the war, are the FED, and the military industrial complex. This nation has gone back to the Gold standard multiple times, and the market adjusts everytime! and prosperity ensues, EVERYTIME. You cant beat money that is backed by something of value. It also limits government spending. Watch a youtube video on the fed, or the history of banking…every President that removed central banking brought prosperity to America, every President that brought back central banking increased debt, deflated the value of our currency, and redistributed more wealth. Woodrow Wilson even apologized to America, because he realized what he had done by authorizing the central bank. Currency maintains its value when backed by precious metals or natural resources. It is devalued by fractional banking. Our dollars true value is at 3 cents, and dropping, fast. The gig has to implode sooner or later…and it would be better if it was a controlled implosian…slowly with alternative moneys. Because if we wait till inflation becomes hyper-inflation…you will then see what truly severed arteries are like. Complete world collapse. There is nobody to save us anymore. The spending game has reached its limit…and we still have not figured out how to pay off the interest…much less the principle. Do some more studying…history repeats itself over and over. Except this mess is bigger then any in history, and rising exponentially.

Griz

April 3, 2012, Midnight

Ron Paul is REALLY transparent.
After three decades of taking up office space.
What has the American people gotten in return?
Hmm, lets see.
Hold on a minute, I am looking at his record.
OK, I found something.
Yep, one bill was signed into law.
And a lot of no votes.

Hey, take a good look at his most current record.
Absent from voting 90% of the time, since the election cycle started.
I guess that’s alright, this is his last term in office.
And his third time, splitting the votes.
As he & his supporters will hand the victory to Obozo.
Mark my words, because he is a sore looser.
He will NOT endorse the Republican winner.
Just like he did four years ago.
But he DID give a endorsement to Cynthia McKinney!

ibsteve2u

April 3, 2012, 6:05 a.m.

@David, who emoted “...these investors want to invest here but the capitol gains tax we have is the highest in the world”

Oh, that’s right…they’re eager to invest because our rigged currency exchange rates give us such a great competitive advantage that you can hire six Americans for the price of one worker in the democratic and transparent nation of the People’s Republic of China?

And because the totalitarian nature of capitalism in America allows the state and the corporation to cooperate and poison the workers, the population, the water, the air, and the land at will in the U.S. of A.? Thus saving the multinational corporations operating in the U.S. of A. the overhead of behaving like responsible, non-murdering humans, whereas those cost savings are not possible in the PRC?

Or did I get that backwards?

Albert Meyer

April 3, 2012, 7:10 a.m.

Thanks for the terrific coverage. Paul also takes care of his own security. Accepting an offer of official secret service protection amounts to welfare, Dr.Paul told Jay Leno. Romney has plenty of dough, but prefers to fleece the taxpayer to pay for his secret service protection. Alas, there is no protection at the ballot box.

Delegates are chosen at Delegate Conventions, a process that has always been tightly controlled by the GOP Politburo, quite easily so because only diehards turned up. This time it is different. Paul supporters are turning up in their hoards to elect the delegates. The three stooges are winning the straw polls. Dr. Genius is picking up delegates at the delegate conventions. Now, don’t expect the media to be smart enough to figure this out. They just feed off each others misconceptions all day long.

Voters who want wars, torture, assassinations, “humanitarian” bombings in oil rich countries, indefinite detentions, drone attacks that kill the innocent, erosion of civil liberties, domestic war on the people (drug war), out-of-control debt and spending, graft and greed, crony capitalism, pandering to special interests, bailouts, more of the same, must NOT vote for Ron Paul.

Voters who want peace, a humane foreign policy, restoration of civil liberties, an end to the war on drugs, sound money, balanced budgets, honesty, integrity and transparency in government, and a President wholly committed to Constitutional government can vote for Ron Paul.

Ain’t that difficult a choice.

Matt

April 3, 2012, 7:26 a.m.

Steve, you are only seeing what you want to see. You keep talking about Ron lowering taxes for the wealthy, but what you fail to mention is that he wants to lower taxes across the board for EVERYONE, rich or poor, that is not favoritism, that is fair, have you read his plan? He doesn’t want an IRS at all, again, that would help all of us, not just the rich. I have resisted taking farm subsidies up to this point because I don’t like them but it’s getting to the point where I may have to take them or find another career, I am taxed so hard and add to that all the wonderful BS permits/fines I have to pay (courtesy of your regulators) I am barely making any money. You always equate “businesses” with big faceless corporations and you fail to see that most “businesses” are people like me, and yes, if my taxes/regulations were lower I could hire some more help and I definitely would.

You mention the overseas money yet you don’t make the connection as to WHY they send everything overseas, could it possibly be because it’s a nightmare trying to run a business in America anymore? Once again as someone pointed out, we DO NOT have capitalism in America, we have crony-capitalism and what’s funny is you support it and don’t even seem to know it. You earlier said you support the Fed Res, well have you even looked into the shareholder’s of the Fed? Do you know who started the Fed? Maybe you should look into that. At any rate would you rather have that money overseas bolstering someone else’s economy or here at home - you decide.

You continue to bring up the evil things SOME corporations do, and I continue to try get you to understand I agree with you about those things, where we are differing is on the solutions because your solution is to trust the govt to regulate them when the govt is in bed with these people, they don’t donate to those politicians campaigns for the fun of it, which is why once again I support the man who get’s no support from them, and it’s not because Ron isn’t a “sure thing” as you put it, was Perry a “sure thing”? They dumped over 16mill into him, if your theory was correct then the corporations would just ignore Ron outright, but they don’t, they have actively tried to crush his campaign at every turn, why would they do that?

ibsteve2u

April 3, 2012, 10:27 a.m.

I surely would like to see someone cite some - many, one would presume - instances of “the corporations” trying “crush [Paul’s] campaign at every turn”. Such attacks work much better as a rallying flag for common cause when they’re subject to…mutual name-and-date verification.

In fact, I’m not the only one who cannot discern much difference between your Paul-grade Republican and your standard-grade Republican:

As for Ron not being any different than the other Rep, I’m not even going to dignify that one.

motter

April 3, 2012, 11:06 a.m.

After reading your “thinkprogress” article I am beginning to understand where all your false thinking is coming from. Allow me to point out some of that articles fallacies.

1. As I’ve already stated, and you continue to ignore, Ron Paul is for lowering taxes for everyone, not just the rich.

2. Ron has not anywhere in his budget plan said anything about making cuts to SS or Medicare, in fact, he is the only candidate with any real plan to save those programs. What’s Obama’s plan again? Borrow more money from China, print it, oh, that’s right, tax the rich, except only problem is new taxes on the rich won’t even come close to paying for those two monstrous programs.

3. The most important thing is what that article DIDN’T mention, which is Ron Paul’s opposition to wars, which Obama and the other’s support, Ron’s opposition to the Patriot Act and NDAA which Obama and the other’s also support, Ron’s opposition to assassinating American citizens, which Obama and the other’s support, Ron’s support in decriminalizing drugs, which Obama and the other’s oppose - do I need to go on? If anything I’d say there’s no difference between Obama and the non-Paul GOP candidates.

I honestly thought for a moment you had a little more knowledge than the usual OWS wannabe, but now I’m seeing I should have listened to my own advice and not even got in this conversation, you only hear and see what you want, you make straw-man arguments and outright ignore facts in order to support your narrative of who you want Ron Paul to be.

Oh, one last thing which I’ve already said but you again ignore, a vast majority of RP supporters are not Republicans, we are not with any party, hard concept for those of you on the left and right to fathom I know but believe it or not there is a whole big world out there beyond those two boxes all of you have put yourself in.

ibsteve2u

April 3, 2012, 7:07 p.m.

Now if Ron Paul were on the “up-and-up” rather than being your standard-grade Republican wearing a voter-garnering anti-war mask, his economic policy would take reality into consideration and account for the fact that cutting taxes on the wealthy just incentivizes them into diverting more of America’s income to themselves using every opportunity available…from diverting all productivity gains to themselves…to buying inequitable free trade in order to offshore American jobs to cheaper labor nations and keep the difference in labor costs for themselves…to buying new rules for the financial sector to make it easier for them to pilfer the savings and 401Ks of the many.

The evidence of that behavior is available literally everywhere in the disparity in income distribution:

Now if you want to know what American tax policy should be…what Ron Paul should be saying if his sympathies lay with the American people and so the United States of America rather than with just that 1% who are quite content to continue gutting America for the wealth contained in her belly, take a gander at this:

There isn’t a rightie politician of any flavor who would advocate the actions described in that latter article; the intended goal - a stronger people and America - runs contrary to those of the American right and their pals in communist China and the Islamic OPEC oil nations.

John

April 4, 2012, 9:11 a.m.

I don’t want to imply anything either way about Ron Paul. I think he’s probably a good guy who has a good grasp on a lot of problems, but has horribly naive solutions, should anybody care. He has an enormous blind spot that the present and immediate future has international megacorporations governing us, so doesn’t realize that “small-government” measures should mean fighting (for example) the anti-piracy measures our ISPs agreed to privately. That’s the last I’ll say on the matter.

But I do find it amusing that, when I’ve seen people go into this kind of detail on matters, there’s a reason for it.

They’re hiding something.

Again, I’m not making the insinuation. I believe that the Paul campaign is doing this out of a combination of novelty and fanaticism. I bring this up so that people don’t get complacent and give the Paul campaign (or more likely, the successor who’s trying to ride the anti-government coattails) a free pass because, “if he itemizes every stamp, there’s no reason to look for a thousand-dollar hooker.”

In a lot of cases, numbers like this are “chaff” to distract the investigator from noticing that something big was misreported. I’d expect a lot of campaigns to do this in four years, specifically to obscure the real spending of, say, a Hillary Clinton.

Mike

April 4, 2012, 9:37 a.m.

Ron Paul supporters are still here: We’re not going ANYWHERE! No one is even close to having 1144 delegates yet. We still have a long way to go. Looks like we will have a brokered convention.

motter

April 4, 2012, 10:33 a.m.

@John: Ron IS against the anti-piracy laws, he has been very vocal on this, are you sure you know who he is? Also, the guy is 76 years old, he’s been married to the same woman for 55yrs, I don’t think he’s hiding any hoookers.

If you do eventually do some research on him you will see this is just how he is, has been his entire career, if he’s got some big “devious” plan it’s not working very well seeing as how his campaign is falling fast, which it pains me to say.

Derek Kolazh

April 4, 2012, 11:38 a.m.

My cousin works for his campaign… and we live lavishly. I can’t complain about the stays at five stars hotels, the lease on the BMW, and the new ipad…

Mike

April 4, 2012, 11:44 a.m.

@Derek Kolazh, I’m calling BEEE- ESSSS on the claim that Ron Paul supporters are living large. I think you’re a troll for either Obama or Romney.

Captain Howdy

April 5, 2012, 6:10 a.m.

Are there still people who believe Ron Paul has integrity? My gosh that level of gullibility is so 2011.

He regularly lards up spending bills with pork for his own district, then votes against it, knowing it will pass anyway. Thus he gets to claim he’s against gov’t spending, as his laps up the ka-ching (and the constituency love). Having and eating his cake.

Here’s a short list of Dr Squeaky Clean’s recent earmarks:

$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
$2.5 million from taxpayers for “new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting.”
$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an “Economically Disadvantaged” area.
$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a “Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center.”
$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to “encourage parents to read aloud to their children.”
$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
$4 million from federal taxpayers for the “Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative.”
$11 million from federal taxpayers for a “Community-Based Job Training Program.”
$2 million from federal taxpayers for a “Clean Energy” pilot project.
$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
$1.2 million for a “Low-income working families Day Care Program”
$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.

And so on. Vote for Ron Paul ! F yeah!

Mike

April 5, 2012, 7:31 a.m.

No sources? That and 2$ will get you a coffee. Let’s talk about real issues instead of drivel. If you spent a dollar a second it would take 32,000 years to spend a trillion dollars! Now imagine you’re in 16 times that much debt: more than any other nation in the world! More debt than the entire European Union! There is only one candidate who understands fiscal responsibility, and has a plan for zero debt in one term. Do you really think we can sustain 16T in debt? Really? Ron Paul or bust. We can’t AFFORD anyone else!

Captain Howdy

April 5, 2012, 9:12 a.m.

To “no sources” Mike: My source for the stats I cited is the official congressional website of ... Ron Paul. If you can find someone with opposable thumbs, you might want to look into it.

There’s nothing special about Ron Paul. He’s a slick, cynical politician playing the rubes. It’s not a real concern to me, since he presents no credible threat to influence national policy, let alone win a presidential nomination. I am concerned about Rand, however. He’s going to be around for a long time and I gather he is both smarter and more cynical than the old man.

Meanwhile an army of dim bulbs—whose knowledge of economics appears to be entirely derived from something they read in The Fountainhead—have formed a cult around these hypocritical thieves.

Mike

April 5, 2012, 9:27 a.m.

Name calling will only discredit your position. a one minute search yielded this who’s who of economists who subscribe to Austrian Economics, as Ron Paul does:

The former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, speaking of the originators of the School, said in 2000, “the Austrian school have reached far into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country.” Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan is sometimes considered to be a member of the Austrian School, and he stated that, “I certainly have a great deal of affinity with Austrian economics and I have no objections to being called an Austrian. Hayek and Mises might consider me an Austrian but, surely some of the others would not.” Republican U.S. congressman Ron Paul is a firm believer in Austrian school economics and has authored six books on the subject. Paul’s former economic adviser, Peter Schiff, is an adherent of the Austrian school. Jim Rogers, investor and financial commentator, also considers himself of the Austrian School of economics. Chinese economist Zhang Weiyin, who is known in China for his advocacy of free market reforms, supports some Austrian theories such as the Austrian theory of the business cycle.

Tim

April 5, 2012, 11:19 a.m.

For what it’s worth, Ron’s campaign headquarters were located in Ankey Iowa during and leading up to the Iowa Caucus. That’s probably from where the 119 stops came.

JM

April 5, 2012, 12:30 p.m.

An amusing feature story, but how is the assertion in the headline and the lede justified? Do we really have any way of knowing whether these filings represent ALL of the Paul campaigns expenses, as opposed to all REPORTED expenses? Flooding the system with mountains of detailed and trivial documentation has been used by lawyers, accountants and, yes, politicians, for years as as strategy to obscure or divert attention from things they don’t want to reveal. I’d like to see a least a little more skepticism.

ibsteve2u

April 6, 2012, 12:10 a.m.

Ron Paul is an Alan Greenspan man, eh?

The Alan Greenspan who said in 2004: “American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.” and then later that year said “While local economies may experience significant price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity. ” to dismiss the rising tide of warnings of a developing housing bubble? (Aforementioned quotes consolidated at en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan)

The Alan Greenspan that thus furthered the mortgage-backed securities pyramid scam that was initiated in 2001 by Ron Paul’s fellow Republicans in the White House??? (see archives.hud.gov/remarks/martinez/speeches/presremarks.cfm)

The Alan Greenspan who inadvertently revealed that corruption is the link that ties all of the American right together - from the few who are the actual power behind the right to all of their politicians in all of their servile variants????

That Alan Greenspan? The man who nursed at Ayn Rand’s knee? Hey…wonder if it is a coincidence that Paul’s son is named Rand?

Captain Howdy

April 6, 2012, 6:26 a.m.

Mike writes, “Name calling will only discredit your position.”

This is incorrect, my young friend. My position is as follows: “morons should be made the objects of scorn and derision.” Ergo, name-calling is the natural consequence of my position.

“a one minute search yielded this who’s who of economists who subscribe to Austrian Economics, as Ron Paul does: The former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan ...”

Stop right there, little fella. Two things about Alan Greenspan: 1) the Ayn Rand groupie was spectacularly wrong about virtually everything that led to the Bush Depression. and 2) I know that when you write big words like “Austrian School,” it gives you a vague tingle up your leg, but has it occurred to you that the idea of a Federal Reserve (or any central bank) is antithetical to the core philosophy of Austrian economics? Hayek, Mises, and your BFF Ron Paul are all twirling in their graves like dervishes at the thought.

No, I see that it has not occurred to you. I suggest with kindness that this is evidence you ought to spend more than a “one minute search” on topics that are clearly above your pay grade.

(Such a brutal spanking you’re getting in here, Mike. Points for biting the pillow like a Trojan though.)

Mike

April 6, 2012, 8:11 a.m.

First of all, the housing bubble began under the Clinton Recession in 1999.

The housing bubble was created by Clinton’s revamped Community Reinvestment Act. In November of 1999 Congress repealed the Glass Steagle Act by establishing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, that then President Bill Clinton signed. The act eliminated the GSA restrictions against affiliations between commercial and investment banks. In addition it allowed banking institutions to provide a broader range of services, including underwriting and other dealing activities.

In the 8 years that ensued banks became massively over leveraged and the financial sector nearly collapsed in late 2008.

The CRA was a misguided attempt to raise the percentage of minority homeownership. The CRA (largely through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) forced banks to loan to minorities even if they were not creditworthy. The loans were made at 130% of the value of the house with no money down. Construction filled housing orders, housing defaults crashed the market, and now we have lots of houses in default tied up in court.

Once this works through the system and the houses find new owners, housing will work off the excess inventory, and construction can get back to work The longer we allow deadbeats to squat in houses without paying for them, the longer this will go on.

Second, Of course the FED is ‘antithetical’ (I think you mean ananthema) to Ron Paul’s position. The FED’s manipulation of monetary policy is why we’re in this mess.

Central Bank manipulation of the currency is what caused the Great Depression to be so Great. Incidentally, the U.S. is the only country where there was a ‘Great Depression’. In other countries where the market was allowed a correction, the economy was back to normal in a couple years. In the U.S., the government interfered with markets and caused more harm than good, and prolonged the depression from 1929 up until World War II.

For a better understanding of why we need the Gold Standard, let’s look at what happened when we went off the Gold Standard. In 1971, the economy was already flagging, then Nixon took us off the Gold Standard, and it got worse, until Carter’s stagflation almost ruined the country, and wiped out the entire Savings & Loan industry. Economists offer two principal explanations for why stagflation occurs.

Central banks can cause inflation by permitting excessive growth of the money supply, and the government can cause stagnation by excessive regulation of goods markets and labor markets. Either of these factors can cause stagflation.

Excessive growth of the money supply taken to such an extreme that it must be reversed abruptly can clearly be a cause. Both types of explanations are offered in analyses of the global stagflation of the 1970s: it began with a huge rise in oil prices, but then continued as central banks used excessively stimulative monetary policy to counteract the resulting recession, causing a runaway wage-price spiral.

In conclusion, the combination of government dictation of private banking policy and FED manipulation of monetary policy has caused the largest depression this country has seen since the FED induced 1929 crash. If we abolish ‘Too Big To Fail’, and let the market work, market corrections will be less severe and tend to resolve themselves sooner.

Hefaestus

April 6, 2012, 8:15 a.m.

Here’s my comment/question, why on earth would your “news” article on Ron Paul for today be about how much they spent on lunch at the Cracker Barrel? You do know he just pulled a record breaking 8000+ at UCLA. Why not cover that? Or perhaps one of the various suitable issues at stake in today’s world like the NDAA and what Ron Paul stance on it is. You might even go so far as to compare his stance on those issues to the stance of other candidates OR even the president. But, no, please tell me, did he order the Big Mac or the Filet-o-Fish?

Captain Howdy

April 6, 2012, 8:37 a.m.

Mike, these two sentences are the best thing that happened to me today:

“Second, Of course the FED is ‘antithetical’ (I think you mean ananthema) to Ron Paul’s position. The FED’s manipulation of monetary policy is why we’re in this mess.”

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I can see that thinking about the complexities of economics is ‘ananthema’ to your brainpan.

(I’m not laughing at you, Mike, I’m laughing toward you. :)

More please!

Mike

April 6, 2012, 8:59 a.m.

I find that people often resort to juvenile rhetoric when they know they’re wrong.

ibsteve2u

April 6, 2012, 10:14 a.m.

@Mike, who emoted “First of all, the housing bubble began under the Clinton Recession in 1999.”

No, the barn door was opened by the Republicans and neoliberal Democrats (Republicans-by-another-name, and slightly more dishonorable therefore) in 1999.

But the question is if a jewelry store owner turns his alarm system off, does that make the jewelry store owner a thief? Or is the thief the individual who throws a brick through his window and snags all of the jewelry?

True, the alarm system was turned off in 1999 - but it took the innate corruption of Republicans to take advantage of it. Anybody in America - anybody in the world - can read it for themselves at:

archives.hud.gov/remarks/martinez/speeches/presremarks.cfm

‘Course, if you’re a member of the right who has the traditional revulsion of the right for truth, you might read it and weep.

Mike

April 6, 2012, 10:53 a.m.

If you’re arguing that both the Dems and Reps are responsible, I agree. The repeal of GSA and promotion of CRA under Clinton paved the way for the housing bubble, but FED actions under Bush didn’t help, and Obama has done nothing but make things worse. This brings us back to the issue at hand: We need to end the FED, back the dollar with something besides B.S., and dig ourselves back out of debt. Ron Paul is the only one who can restore fiscal sanity to this mess and get us back on track.

ibsteve2u

April 6, 2012, 11:15 a.m.

lolllll…try hard enough, and maybe you’ll convince folks that was a Fed official giving that speech instead of Ron Paul’s fellow Republican, Bush.

Mike

April 6, 2012, 11:29 a.m.

Who do you think was advising Bush? The FED, maybe? Ron Paul has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush. Unlike the FED tools we’ve had in office for the last two decades, he actually has a notion of what fiscal responsibility is, and has the ability to implement it.

ibsteve2u

April 6, 2012, 11:54 a.m.

lollll…one of us might be - perhaps unwittingly - naive….for I would have said that Goldman Sachs advised Bush rather than the Fed, and Greenspan and the Fed went along ‘cuz the Fed represents the bankers and Wall Street who were the designated beneficiaries.

Republicans - all of them - are really good at taking advice from “high finance”. Like, if you look at Ron Paul’s net worth in 2006

the man surely gets some good advice somewhere…especially considering how your average American’s 401K was taking a bath. Paul had a particularly perky jump there between 2008 and 2009.

Of course, that was before the STOCK act.

Mike

April 6, 2012, 12:20 p.m.

It’s obvious that your agenda is to smear the good name of the only candidate who can get the country back to solvency. You’re wasting your time, though. Crooks like Obama will be gone in November, when we vote in the last honest man in politics: Ron Paul.

ibsteve2u

April 6, 2012, 1:17 p.m.

@Mike:

As an American citizen, I thought it bizarre to judge a candidate for the Presidency solely by the fastidiousness with which the person to whom the task was delegated reported the amount of money being spent on coffee, so as the article’s subject was transparency I added more data so that the reader could broaden the foundation they base their decision upon.

Is that too…American? To want an educated electorate equipped with the knowledge they need to protect their children’s future?

Paul had a shot at earning respect…but he evaded his responsibility as an American citizen and as member of the government of the United States of America.

If he could not do the right thing when he knew - when he stated - that crimes had been committed against the Constitution and the American people by personally moving to impeach George W. Bush, then how could a reasonable person expect him to ensure that the government plays by the rules at any time in the future? See:

Republican Congressman Ron Paul says President Bush has presided over a system wide doctrine of violating the Constitution at every turn and that he should be impeached - but that likely Democratic efforts to do so will be in the interests of playing politics and not the health of the nation.

During an interview with Alex Jones on the GCN Radio network, Paul outlined the likely scenario as to how impeachment proceedings would unfold.

“I’d be surprised if they win both - I think they’re going to win one body and if they win the House right now they do not say they would have an impeachment but I think the way that place operates I think they probably will make every effort,” said Paul.

“If they happened to have a ten or fifteen vote margin that would be a political thing - it would be payback time.”

Paul said that Bush should be impeached not under the umbrella of partisan vengeance but for ceaselessly breaking the laws of the land.

“I would have trouble arguing that he’s been a Constitutional President and once you violate the Constitution and be proven to do that I think these people should be removed from office.”

End quote.

A strange position for a man who avows himself to be a strict Constitutionalist to take…to recognize that a crime - that crimes - had been committed and then lay the groundwork for calling any effort to impeach the criminal “partisan politics”...thereby providing an excuse for himself for doing nothing while creating a shield for the criminals.

By taking that course of action, Paul condemned himself twice: By speaking too much truth for the American right, he ensured that the establishment Republicans will do whatever it takes to ensure that he does not attain higher office. Not smart, that; the Republican power structure controls some significant media venues. The value of their propaganda against democracy and Democratic candidates is fading fast since that is all they ever do, but when they belittle or trivialize a Republican...the novelty carries enormous impact.

But more importantly by failing to do the right thing when he knew great wrongs had been committed, Ron Paul demonstrated that he does not merit the trust of the American people.

You can call that a “smear” if you like…I would describe it as my conclusion after having analyzed reality.

Mike

April 6, 2012, 1:45 p.m.

Now we know who is REALLY naive! Of course it’s partisan politics. The same as it was when Clinton was impeached. Both sides are doing it for the same reason: to foment divisiveness. Dems and Reps are both working toward a Big Government/Big Business agenda, and the only one who can stop it is Ron Paul.

ibsteve2u

April 6, 2012, 2:43 p.m.

@Mike, who emoted “Dems and Reps are both…”

So Ron Paul is “different”? Which Ron Paul? Libertarian Ron Paul, or Republican Ron Paul? Or should I say “Rep Ron Paul”?

If he is “different” from the Republicans, then why did he choose to become “Republican” Ron Paul? Because it is easier to be elected as a “Republican”? That is, deception is “OK” in the pursuit of personal goals? What defines the limits of deception beyond which Ron Paul will not go? Is he Libertarian, and so the pursuit of wealth alone justifies unlimited deception - survival of the fittest, in the coin of the realm - but there is some vague moral code unrelated to the pursuit of wealth that must be honored? Or is he truly Republican, and so there are no limits to his deceptions, at all?

Who is Ron Paul?? Take away the slogans…the rants against the Fed, the rants against the wars his fellow Republicans started…and what is left?

What does Ron Paul offer the American people except tax cuts…tax cuts which have been proven over and over again - ever since Reagan - to do nothing more than incentivize the few to divert ever more wealth from the many to themselves? Tax cuts, to add more fuel to the fire of the ravening greed of the 1%? What do those tax cuts do, but transform the penalty for excessive greed to…more wealth?

How could the American people possibly benefit from Ron Paul? Should they elect him and then thank him for replacing the peculiar freedom of the battlefield and the quick death of war with the golden chains of economic slavery and the slow death of starvation?

Mike

April 6, 2012, 2:49 p.m.

Ron Paul has been the most consistent candidate running. He ran Republican this year, because third party candidates get no press. That’s not so hard, now is it?

ibsteve2u

April 6, 2012, 3:13 p.m.

lollll….it is amusing, seeing as how you can find comments in this thread that claim that all Ron Paul gets as a Republican is bad press.

And it is also…surprising….in that your comment is an admission of intent to deceive for the purposes of manipulating the media and the public.

Mike

April 6, 2012, 3:25 p.m.

You trolls crack me up. Do you get paid by the word, or by the hour? I bet my buddy that you get paid by the word, since your posts are always so long-winded, but never really say anything.

ibsteve2u

April 6, 2012, 3:35 p.m.

lollll…predictable. Somewhat delayed, in fact.

cmotter

April 6, 2012, 4:04 p.m.

@Mike: I wouldn’t even bother with this tool. I was duped for a moment into thinking he had something relevant to say but he just keeps coming back with the same crap: 1% this, Republicans that, and ofcourse the Democrats are innocent in it all, the whole country has been brought to ruin solely by the Republicans all the while those noble Dems have been fighting so hard to protect the little guy, cuz they don’t take bribes, they’re not influenced at all by special interests (even tho campaign contributions are public record and Dems take donations from all the same people as Repubs do and let’s not forget the top richest politicians are all Dems) stardard OWS nonsense.

David

April 6, 2012, 4:20 p.m.

Isn’t this the kind of transparency that we all want? I know I’d love to know that my elected officials are willing to show me everything and more, so to speak.